SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 30. In the result, all grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for assessment year 2009-10. 31. So far as the Cross objection filed by the Department is concerned, since the facts for assessment year 2009-10 are similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, the CO filed

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 30. In the result, all grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for assessment year 2009-10. 31. So far as the Cross objection filed by the Department is concerned, since the facts for assessment year 2009-10 are similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, the CO filed

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 30. In the result, all grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for assessment year 2009-10. 31. So far as the Cross objection filed by the Department is concerned, since the facts for assessment year 2009-10 are similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, the CO filed

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 30. In the result, all grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for assessment year 2009-10. 31. So far as the Cross objection filed by the Department is concerned, since the facts for assessment year 2009-10 are similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, the CO filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue. Now we shall take up ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2005-06) ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue. Now we shall take up ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2005-06) ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue. Now we shall take up ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2005-06) ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue. Now we shall take up ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2005-06) ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue. Now we shall take up ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2005-06) ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue. Now we shall take up ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2005-06) ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue. Now we shall take up ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2005-06) ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years